On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 12:01:36PM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> Chris Edwards wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, David Woodhouse wrote:
[...]
> > | Yeah, this is just the UCEPROTECT folks being muppets. I'm with Nigel;
> > | they're best ignored.
> >
> > The classic DNSBL argument! Assuming they are muppets, they will
> > ultimately be ignored, with few mail admins using them to block. If
> > however enough mail admins are using them to block as to cause pain to
> > those listed, then one might at least sit and think whether or not their
> > listing policy has some merit afterall.
>
> If you are going to run an RBL to list spammers then that's fine. If you
> are going to use the same RBL to advance a political ajenda then that's
> not fine. If a vendor lists servers in their spam RBL that they know
> aren't spammers then they are muppets.
All blacklists are political statements. You are simply
distinguishing between the ones you like and the ones that
occasionally list addresses under your control. Remember
that whatever happens blacklists don't list ``spammers'',
who are people, but IP addresses, which are abstract
entities. At least these UCEPROTECT cretins are stating
what their stupid policies are; usually these are left
unstated or stated only implicitly.
Rather than trying to distinguish between ``permissible''
political statements, by which you mean ones which you
like (`spam is bad', `forwarding email is bad', etc.) and
``not permissible'' political statements, by which you
mean ones you don't like (`sender verification callouts
are bad'), you should be honest about the fact that you
just don't agree with the idiots in this case.
--
``A lie can be half-way around the world before truth has got his boots on.''
(James Callaghan)
